Ominous future for Pakistan

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Rigging Pakistan's Election?

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, December 3, 2007; Page A17

Diplomats at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad could hardly believe what President Bush said to anchor Charles Gibson on ABC's "World News" on Nov. 20. He described Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, as "somebody who believes in democracy" and declared: "I understand how important he is in fighting extremists and radicals." Was the president of the United States issuing Musharraf a free pass to rig next month's elections in Pakistan?

That was not Bush's intention. But his lavishing such praise on the general who had ruled Pakistan through military force led to assumptions that the United States would blink at election-rigging. Plotters in Islamabad seeking to undermine Benazir Bhutto's effort to become prime minister a third time can claim that U.S. diplomats demanding democracy do not reflect their president's true wishes.

While Bush calls Musharraf "a loyal ally in fighting terrorists," the Pentagon and the CIA have not been happy with Pakistan's record against al-Qaeda. That's why the U.S. government pressed Musharraf to permit Bhutto to return from exile and share power as a more dependable foe of the Islamists. Musharraf's response was to impose martial law, which amounted to a second military coup to keep him in power.

Intense U.S. pressure has forced Musharraf to resign from the army to keep his presidency, and he is soon to lift martial law. Still at issue is how free the election will be and whether Bhutto will take office with a large governing majority. When Musharraf still resisted Washington's demands last week that he end his state of emergency, I asked Bhutto how an election could be conducted under those conditions. Her message: "Elections under martial law cannot be free or fair."

It remains an open question whether an election could still be rigged by Musharraf without martial law. He has appointed local electoral officials who will take orders. Twenty million names have disappeared from the national voters list, whose preparation was financed with U.S. aid. When this was discovered, the government said that anybody on the old list would be permitted to vote. But the new list is flawed, with millions of names repeated to permit multiple votes by individuals. All this attempts at least to minimize Bhutto's majority and force her into taking a coalition partner.

Musharraf's efforts to keep Bhutto out have been orchestrated for two years by retired brigadier Ijaz Shah, who left Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) to become the president's chief of civilian intelligence. The ISI, a state within a state, is aligned against Bhutto and would be at the heart of any vote-rigging.

The ISI's views were expressed Nov. 19 by Ahmed Quraishi, an anchor on state-owned Pakistani television, in an article posted on his Web site and published in several of the country's newspapers. He describes an American plot "clipping the wings of a strong Pakistani military" that concludes by "toppling Musharraf, sidelining the military and installing a pliant government in Islamabad."

If Musharraf is finished, the ISI's chosen successor could be his old adversary, Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted as prime minister and went into exile when Musharraf seized power eight years ago. A recent secret meeting in Riyadh between ISI and Saudi intelligence officials -- Sharif has lived in Jiddah for years -- arranged for Sharif's return Nov. 25. Though he intends to regain national leadership, Sharif is boycotting the January elections, in which he would lose badly. In a recent private conversation with a former Pakistani government official, Sharif said that he hoped a coup would not be necessary to take power but did not rule it out.

Sharif in control would fit the Saudi royal family's desire for support from nuclear power Pakistan but would be a nightmare for U.S. interests because of his Islamist ties. Bush has bet heavily on Musharraf, sending an estimated $150 million a month in aid. But Pakistan is resisting the Pentagon's request to send additional U.S. Special Forces to the Afghan border to help Pakistan's Frontier Corps fight terrorists. Pakistan's dedication to fighting the Islamist terrorists is diluted by officials sharing in gun-running and drug-running. The U.S. return on its massive investment in Pakistan has been disappointing, with hopes for more from Bhutto if vote-rigging does not stop her.

In my Nov. 29 column, I incorrectly reported that Trent Lott voted as a House Judiciary Committee member for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. He voted against impeachment, but soon after, upon learning of the evidence against Nixon, he did announce that he would vote for impeachment on the House floor.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

A very interesting and perplexing commentary emanating from the USA.

Bush is happy with Musharraf and the CIA is not.

Who is calling the shots?

And what is the connection with rigging? I haven't understood that!

 

[fatman17]

A very interesting and perplexing commentary emanating from the USA.

Bush is happy with Musharraf and the CIA is not.

Who is calling the shots?

And what is the connection with rigging? I haven't understood that!

Another neo-con Purile Analysis by someone who has never been to Pakistan or for that matter has no basic understanding of the ground realities!!!

 

[aryan2007]

You have completely misunderstood the article - Nowhere does it talk about "growing extremism" - what it does refer to is a growing "conservatism" and there is nothing wrong with that. The people running the program are comfortable with the "conservatism" of their personnel , the monitoring program is to ensure that conservatism does not change into extremism and if it does then it is spotted promptly. In a sense, a conservative staff also immunizes them to some extent from being recruited by Western Intel, so the PA probably does not mind that too much either.

what about AQ then??

You have stated your conclusions in an extremely misleading manner, by tying in past lapses (and you do realize that the Western world and India have also had lapses in the Nuclear control field) and Indian concerns to a non existent "growing extremism" you are patching together a quasi factual doomsday analysis of the Pakistani situation.

AS I said prepare for the worst hope for the best.. doomsday analysis or not.. nothing sends alarm bells ringing in the North and South Block..

The article in fact proves that there is nothing to worry about - past lapses and mistakes have resulted in a extremely thorough and comprehensive monitoring program that serves to both weed out extremists, and keep tabs on who is talking to the Americans.Israelis IndiansI'd say that at this point the C&C system appears almost as good as what the US has. We have even designed our own PAL's, which most analysts were suggesting Pakistan did not have and was incapable of manufacturing indigenously.

whatever you say..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A very interesting and perplexing commentary emanating from the USA.

Bush is happy with Musharraf and the CIA is not.

Who is calling the shots?

And what is the connection with rigging? I haven't understood that!

Novak has had several meetings with Bhutto - dating back to when Musharraf took power. In an interview of his a little over a year ago, he mentioned how he initially thought that Bhutto's tirade against Musharraf was simply more of the typical "exiled politicians" ranting. However his views have followed the general trend in the US media - that of becoming anti Musharraf in favor of a "well spoken liberalized pro-Western BB", and looking at Musharraf as somehow "protecting AQ". In this particular interview, he was quite enamored with her.

You can also see his connections to BB from this statement:

"Musharraf's efforts to keep Bhutto out have been orchestrated for two years by retired brigadier Ijaz Shah, who left Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) to become the president's chief of civilian intelligence."

Which is almost verbatim the allegation leveled by Bhutto after the Karachi attack.

You can tell his neo-con slant from the plethora of generalizations he makes about the Pakistani SF's. He conveniently ignores all the other reports about the CIA staff being reduced to almost non-existent in favor of the Iraq war - how other reports have suggested that the CA was not happy with how the relationships and cooperation that was building with Pakistan was sacrificed - and puts his own blurb in there. Then there is the usual tirade of the ISI being a State within a State, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was being run until very recently by Washington's on preferred man for the top job - Kiyani (who BB also likes).

Just more of the usual drivel emanating from the US.

His allegations of complicity of officials in the drug and gun trade have been debunked by US agencies in testimony to Senate Committees (I posted a blurb on that in the ISI thread I believe) - So we should either believe him, or that US agencies are lying to their government in testimony under oath!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

what about AQ then??

AS I said prepare for the worst hope for the best.. doomsday analysis or not.. nothing sends alarm bells ringing in the North and South Block..

whatever you say..

You do realize that the AQ Khan episode occurred before any of these controls were put in place don't you? And my reference to "security breaches in the West and India refers to the fact that every country has had these issues and come up with safeguards in the aftermath. So I am not sure what point your AQ remark has - like I said before - please elucidate your responses so they are somewhat coherent.

Preparing for the worst is fine - but you are misrepresenting what the article said. That is intellectually dishonest.

You can puerile or you can offer an alternative analysis as to why the Pakistan nukes are not secure. Since you have not offered one at this point, other than one bases on twisting and misrepresenting facts, I'll assume that you really have nothing that indicates that Pakistani nukes are vulnerable - except that desire of some of our neighbors from the East to bash everything Pakistani.

 

[aryan2007]

You do realize that the AQ Khan episode occurred before any of these controls were put in place don't you? And my reference to "security breaches in the West and India refers to the fact that every country has had these issues and come up with safeguards in the aftermath. So I am not sure what point your AQ remark has - like I said before - please elucidate your responses so they are somewhat coherent.

Preparing for the worst is fine - but you are misrepresenting what the article said. That is intellectually dishonest.

You can puerile or you can offer an alternative analysis as to why the Pakistan nukes are not secure. Since you have not offered one at this point, other than one bases on twisting and misrepresenting facts, I'll assume that you really have nothing that indicates that Pakistani nukes are vulnerable - except that desire of some of our neighbors from the East to bash everything Pakistani.

by AQ I meant not Khan bu queda.. .
The growing conservativism with a few extremist characters would render am Susceptible to AQ and T-Ban influence rather than western.. you know not everyone who is a extremist will exactly appear extremist.. and having greater conservativeness will camouflage them better ..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

by AQ I meant not Khan bu queda.. .
The growing conservativism with a few extremist characters would render am Susceptible to AQ and T-Ban influence rather than western.. you know not everyone who is a extremist will exactly appear extremist.. and having greater conservativeness will camouflage them better ..

The "growing conservatism" does not make the personnel more susceptible to AQ - you seem to be intent on drawing a line between conservatism and extremism, which is simply not true. The LM mullah who was killed was actually quite secular and westernized until his father died, at which point a transformation in his ideology occurred - so that correlation is a false one IMO.

The report suggests that the personnel vetting and monitoring program begins before hiring and continues even after these individuals leave the organization. Now the whole point of having such an intrusive and comprehensive employee vetting and monitoring program is to catch anyone, secular or conservative, who might become a liability. This could be selling out to Western/Indian intel or possibly AQ - but that is what the safeguards are for. These concerns exist in every country and are unique to every countries situation. What is important is how comprehensive the system set up to safeguard strategic assets and from all accounts the Pakistani nuclear controls appear very comprehensive.

If you disagree, you have to make a case as to where flaws exist, where improvements could take place, and how other countries are doing it better (It would be interesting to compare Pakistani controls to Indian ones for example). It does appear from most of the reports being released recently that Pakistan has incorporated most of the systems and processes utilized by the US in safeguarding its own nukes.

 

[Energon]

The "growing conservatism" does not make the personnel more susceptible to AQ - you seem to be intent on drawing a line between conservatism and extremism, which is simply not true. The LM mullah who was killed was actually quite secular and westernized until his father died, at which point a transformation in his ideology occurred - so that correlation is a false one IMO.

I think this is actually the key issue. Not just for the nuclear safety topic, but the society at large. What is needed is a meticulous and objective study of this connection where the line between the conservative and the radical becomes obscure and how people from the former group shift to the latter. Subsequently, the data gathered needs to be used to figure out how to prevent this phenomenon through an intrinsic (at the societal level, not individual) mechanism.

 

[fatman17]

I think this is actually the key issue. Not just for the nuclear safety topic, but the society at large. What is needed is a meticulous and objective study of this connection where the line between the conservative and the radical becomes obscure and how people from the former group shift to the latter. Subsequently, the data gathered needs to be used to figure out how to prevent this phenomenon through an intrinsic (at the societal level, not individual) mechanism.

i really would like to know where u guys are going with this?
the problem is that anyone who has a beard (i dont lest u start stereotyping me) and works for tha PAEC or KRL or is employed by the PA is a potential extremist and since one guy changed his view from western to radical you assume that everyone will follow suit is a really biased and blinkered view. radicalism is at the fringe of our society and we are doing (and i fully support it) snuffing it out in a way we think is right not what the US/UK/EU or for that matter India wants.

 

[Energon]

i really would like to know where u guys are going with this?
the problem is that anyone who has a beard (i dont lest u start stereotyping me) and works for tha PAEC or KRL or is employed by the PA is a potential extremist and since one guy changed his view from western to radical you assume that everyone will follow suit is a really biased and blinkered view. radicalism is at the fringe of our society and we are doing (and i fully support it) snuffing it out in a way we think is right not what the US/UK/EU or for that matter India wants.

As a person who has spent a fair amount of time living in the Islamic world (albeit as an expatriate), I honestly feel that the phenomenon I have mentioned above is what is at the core of the Islamic world's problem today. The problem has been ongoing for a long time now, but for an assortment of obvious reasons, they have just widened in scope as of late and been given global attention.

One of the biggest impediments in actually alleviating the issue (which affects the world at large) is that there is still a lot to be learnt. And unfortunately due to the sensitive nature of the topic, the Islamic world itself isn't investing much into well constructed scientific research into the matter. Do you honestly think enough is being done to "snuff out" radicalism? Currently all that is being done is focal suppression, but nothing of substance.

Nonetheless, I think this topic probably deserves its own thread.

 

[fatman17]

Do you honestly think enough is being done to "snuff out" radicalism? Currently all that is being done is focal suppression, but nothing of substance.

U may know more than me but i am facing this daily and...
call it what u may, but give it time - the situation in swat is receding to normalcy but i agree with you force is not the answer, winning the hearts and minds by providing education, health, jobs etc will bring the local population back in the fold not only in swat but in the other tribal areas.

 

[Energon]

U may know more than me but i am facing this daily and...
call it what u may, but give it time - the situation in swat is receding to normalcy but i agree with you force is not the answer, winning the hearts and minds by providing education, health, jobs etc will bring the local population back in the fold not only in swat but in the other tribal areas.

Again, very easy to say provide X, Y and Z and then everything will become ok. Have you ever given a thought as to how this can be done? Even something simple as practicing frontier medicine in parts of the Islamic world is practically impossible. Again, the reason being that nobody wants to admit that the fabric of the entire society is severly compromised.